None, but they are annoying in competitive multiplayer FPS. I'm sure many people find it annoying that in MW2 you have to either sit in a building and hide from the air support or run out only to get mowed down unless you have cold blooded.

Cod? If that isn't mainstream, then I don't know. (However, I don't like cod either)

I understand what your saying. However, vehicles bring depth!

Depth? How so?

Erm... MW2 has vehicles. kill 5 people and you will see what I mean.

The Ark has limited resources so I don't think it would be in the spirit of the game to include vehicles that would consume the resources they are fighting over but that's just my 2 cents.

Well, mission based vehicles could be added imo.

"I can see gunships, hovercrafts or amphib tanks work very well in Brink.
Maybe as mobile spwan points or special mission objectives? Or a map where you have to fend of/lead an assault?

It's definitly not unimaginable to see some controllable vehicles ingame".

This quote is from another post blog user. I dont agree nor disagree with the above. but it does answer the question... maybe?!

Like the guns in brink resistance have lesser guns and security have better guns.The same could be applied to vehicles.

yeah... no... it makes no sense with the story. we are isolated from the rest of the world, oh lawds! hey, instead of using this helicopter to search for civilization, lets shoot people. Itll be great. and yeah, what genius at Toyota or whatever company created the Ark (i went with toyota because the ark worked at first, and well, yeah) decided, "Hey lets make an eco-friendly floating city... oh, and dont forget the tanks."

tanks, helicopters, jets, and whatever else military wise makes no sense with the story

no to every part of that sentence, no

Try not to think 2D.

As the ark begun to grow and grow (population wise) the security would have had no choice but to 'up their game' to tackle the threat of the resistance.

Not unimaginable.

the top part is a fact (look it up on youtube) and the second part well... I was just stating how it could be possible

No. The guns do the exact same damage.

They just sound and look different.

The resistance also has as many guns as the security seems to so...

they are isolated from the rest of the world, where are they getting the supplies to build attack choppers and tanks, and the fuel used to move them

I definitely don't want to see vehicles in this game. They totally break the overall feel of the game. The devs have made it clear that they want the fighting to be up close and personal. This is the reason that they took "sniping" out of the game. Adding vehicles would be a total departure from that philosophy. How is blowing somebody up with an attack chopper from 100 feet in the air personal in any way?

Also, don't use the killstreak vehicles in MW2 as an example of vehicles in mainstream games. The killstreaks are the single worst feature of that whole game. They are also incredibly op and ruin the experience for one team.

Vehicles are just opposite of what Splash Damage is trying to do, and i believe they would rather lose the vehicle crowd than those who want a up close in your face badass experience.

they also ruin teamplay, why am i going to risk my ass to revive you if im one kill away from [insert killstreak]? (dont worry bro, i totally would anyway )

Part of the reason TF2 is successful is the fact that there is no Vehicals. you make games more fun by keeping them simple, The less complicated the game is the better.

no vehicles plzzzz!!! this is not that type of game..this game is focused very much on the SHOOTER and TEAMWORK aspect of the game. Adding tanks..wich means AT weapons...wich means AT weapons not being used as AT weapons means a [censored] game(check BFBC2 as a reference).

you mean MW2, i love BC2 and yeah there is a problem with that, but seriously, in MW2 i have hardly ever seen someone actually shoot something down with an RPG

Personally, those people that may want to use vehicles, may or may not be MW2'ers or the bad part of the BFBC2 community. I don't want vehicles, because infantry rocks and our chars will look awesome.

An easy fix? Not only creating the vehicles, but the controls, weapons and backstory. Totally an easy fix. :thumbsdown:



Having vehicles would cause excess damage to the Ark hardly a good idea.



Well there is the bomb removerd bot so that's a vehicle. Mission accomplished.



Wow really?? Crazy character and weapon customatizion. Classes that actually been something, body types, abilities and the SMART system. So many FPS have all these things! :banghead: :banghead:




That 2.


Exactly.

No vehicles its counterproductive to the world and gameplay expierence.

No.

The assault idea is the only way this could work, but it would need to be against cars rather than tanks. Regular cars, if they have those on the Ark. If I built an Ark, it would have a monorail system going everywhere, not cars and roads.

Firstly I'm not against vehicles in FPS in general, I enjoy it in some games and certainly some do it well. However Brink is not a game fore vehicles.

Storywise it would make no sense. Where are these tanks coming from? Build tanks on the spot? I'm no expert but tanks require a LOT of components, which means factories, which means energy, which means materials, and that aint exactly growing on trees for the guys on the Ark. Also Brink starts on the first day of the civil war, where would sec pull these tanks out of even if they had the materials and the energy. Also I see no way for res to steal, maintain and fuel vehicles when they are struggling for water and food, and if they can't kinda unblalanced.

Also on a game play level, it will take a lot of effort to navigate a tank through the tight quaters of a city. If these tanks are like the bot, then shotguns and grenades can take them out easily, rendering the loss of mobility too bad a drawback to make the tank worth while. If the tank is a rolling piece of ownage, everyone goes light since they would just run into a tank and die if they play anything else. If both sides got more than one vehicle, then there would be 2-3 people on each vehicle, leaving the last 2 guys to twiddle their thumbs as tanks blow the crap out of them. If theres only one then it becomes which team can destroy the tank first. Since its only 8v8, vehicles make no sense. Not to mention the whole small map issue.

Also on a design level its never gonna happen. It's been delayed enough, and certainly doesn't need to add vehicle animation, maps, textures, models, sounds, controls etc to delay it further. Also to whoever asked which FPS had no vehicles, umm... TF2, CS, Quake... all great games, no vehicles. And dont forget, SD was founded on top of a Quake clan/modder community, so what developers really wanted was fast, intense, close, objective driven infantry on infantry game, not tanks rolling through giant enviroments.

Vehicles have their place, just not in Brink.